What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

Is the sum of a sequence of die rolls random?

Is the sequence of head or tails of a coin toss random?

 

[Dumbledore]

No, no, no. We aren't speaking of having limited possibilities to begin with but of limiting possibilities further. Everything occurs on some substrate, so everything has some limitations. A die roll has six possibilities. That is one of its constraints. A genome has four base pairs to work with, that is one of its contraints. Selection has nothing whatever to do with the original constraints of the system. Selection further limits the possibilities within the already existing constraints.

So, a die roll has six possibilities. A loaded die has one or two possibilities. We call the die roll result random. We call the loaded die result non-random (because of the decreased number of possibilities from its native state of six). A pitcher throws a ball. We call the throw random if it can go off in any direction possible (there are always constraints), but we call it non-random if he is good and throws it over the plate most of the time. Mutations are random, occurring within a particular substrate. But they are limited in expression over time by natural selection (only some survive). So we call that process non-random.

If there is more than one possible outcome, then everything is random from a given perspective.

Wow, again thanks, you should charge for the education and clarity you are giving to this subject, thanks again!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wow, again thanks, you should charge for the education and clarity you are giving to this subject, thanks again!

Why?

It was wrong when articulett said it repeatedly earlier in the thread and it is wrong now.

For instance, there is a whole class of random processes known as martingales that are dependent on the previous states of the system and there is nothing in the construction of the system that requires the probabilities to be uniformly distributed.

 

[Dumbledore]

Why?

It was wrong when articulett said it repeatedly earlier in the thread and it is wrong now.

For instance, there is a whole class of random processes known as martingales that are dependent on the previous states of the system and there is nothing in the construction of the system that requires the probabilities to be uniformly distributed.

So no the rant is not going to stop? Just checking!!!!

 

[mijopaalmc]

So no the rant is not going to stop? Just checking!!!!

Do you have anything useful to contribute?

I am simply pointing out that you have overlooked several large classes of stochastic processes, which are axiomatically random, by defining "random" as "uniformly distributed", "statistically independent", and "memoryless"

ETA: Would you also care to explain why it is acceptable for prominent scientists to assume that evolution is a stochastic process for the purpose of modeling but actually proposing that it is a stochastic process is anathema in some parts of biology?

 

[Dumbledore]

Do you have anything useful to contribute?

I am simply pointing out that you have overlooked several large classes of stochastic processes, which are axiomatically random, by defining "random" as "uniformly distributed", "statistically independent", and "memoryless"

ETA: Would you also care to explain why it is acceptable for prominent scientists to assume that evolution is a stochastic process for the purpose of modeling but actually proposing that it is a stochastic process is anathema in some parts of biology?

No, I don't really have anything of value to contribute. As for the rest of your post, I and others have given you evidence and argumentation to show why you are mistaken in thinking of evolution as a stochastic process, you have ignored it, but by all means continue on!

 

[mijopaalmc]

No, I don't really have anything of value to contribute. As for the rest of your post, I and others have given you evidence and argumentation to show why you are mistaken in thinking of evolution as a stochastic process, you have ignored it, but by all means continue on!

Again, the sources you provide are rife with references to probability, which is how stochastic processes are defined.

Perhaps you, or anyone else here, can described to me, as I requested in my OP, how one can simultaneously describe a process as "non-random" and then discuss how changes in the parameters alter the probabilities in the process. It seriously doesn't take a genius to figure out that then only self-consistent definition of "random" is "[o]f or relating to an event or situation that can be described by a probability distribution or random variables" and that the popular literature contradicts itself when it call evolution by natural selection "non-random" and then goes on to describe it with probabilities.

I would take you a lot more seriously if you gave some indication that you had actually considered what I was saying rather than just parroting what articulett has said, as you have not presented any new information since you first posted here.

 

[articulett]

No, I don't really have anything of value to contribute. As for the rest of your post, I and others have given you evidence and argumentation to show why you are mistaken in thinking of evolution as a stochastic process, you have ignored it, but by all means continue on!

Your words are only a contribution welcomed by Mijo if they affirm his conclusion that "there is no evidence that evolution is not random"-- however vague and meaningless that phrase may be. If he can't twist your words to reach that conclusion you will be derided... But you are in good company, my friend. He feels similarly about Dawkins, peer reviewed scientists, and the majority of people who have attempted to answer his bizarre question in the most careful and thorough way possible. The more you stick around the more such folks will jump out at you... check out the "annoying creationist" thread for a particularly sad example. And they never change. You always think that you have just the example or way of wording things to get them to understand the answer to their question or why their question is bad-- but nope... that just never ever happens. They already have their answer and it is inferred in every weird question they ask. They suck people in because they seem to really be curious... but they show an extreme lack of curiosity to actual answers as well as new developments in this field of knowledge they are supposedly interested in.

It sounded (in the OP) like he was interested in understanding why biologists say evolution (particularly natural selection) is NOT random or at least why it's unclear to characterize it as such. But he was actually trying to affirm for himself that scientists really do think all this complexity arose "randomly" whatever the hell one might extrapolate that to mean.

Honest people aim for a little better descriptors and a little more focus on the non-randomness when describing evolution. Intelligent design proponents do their best to make sure they and others don't understand how natural selection is responsible for the seeming design-- how it's "non-random". I think it's because once people really understand natural selection, the rest of the blather sounds like the obfuscating nothingness it actually is. Natural selection makes a designer unnecessary...though not impossible. Many believers have no problem with natural selection. It's the insincere questions and the dismissal of people who see through his questions that bug me the most.

You can describe evolution using stochastic models or at least parts of evolution... but nobody does it to come to the conclusion that "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random" as Mijo does. He likes stochastic models because he thinks stochastic is a synonym for "random" and that if you can model evolution using stochastics then that "proves" to him that scientists are really claiming evolution IS random. Randomness plays a role--but selection is responsible for the complexity and seeming design.

 

[sphenisc]

It seriously doesn't take a genius to figure out that then only self-consistent definition of "random" is "[o]f or relating to an event or situation that can be described by a probability distribution or random variables" and that the popular literature contradicts itself when it call evolution by natural selection "non-random" and then goes on to describe it with probabilities.

I think you've already agreed that there are different definitions of 'random' and that your OP was in regard to the technical definition. I can also understand your complaint about technical literature using the term inappropriately, but why would you expect the popular literature to use anything other than a 'colloquial' definition? If it uses the term to mean something like "patternlessness/completely unpredictable" then it can use "non-random" to include things which are described by probabilities.

Definitions are an area where ad populem is not a fallacy, the majority is always right and Humpty Dumpty bows to the crowd. In a technical setting it's sensible to use the agreed technical definition, in casual conversation not so much.

And if I wanted to get really picky then I'd point out that a process is neither an "event"¹or a "situation"², so a random process makes no sense, (or a non-random one come to that).



1 a set of outcomes (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned. Wikipedia
2 Position or status with regard to conditions and circumstances. Free Online Dictionary

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is the sum of a sequence of die rolls random?

Is the sequence of head or tails of a coin toss random?

The answer depends critically on the frame for the question. Since the questions themselves are ambiguous I will give several answers.

They are really the same question, so I'll stick to the die roll.

If you mean the sum of a sequence of die rolls looking form the perspective of one rolling the die and not knowing the outcome yet, then the sum of the sequence of rolls is random. We can't predict the summation because we can't predict the results of the die rolls.

If you mean from the perspective of someone who has already rolled the dice and has the numbers in front of him and is now doing the sums, then the summation is not random (as defined in terms of "correct" answer). In fact, it is more than "non-random", it is determined.

If you are asking whether or not the answer for the summation is random, then yes it is because the answer one receives depends on a number of factors not limited to the mathematical skills of the one performing the summation. There are other contingencies to consider when the summation takes place -- does the person have a seizure in the middle of it? does a comet hit the earth just before the sum is arrived at? does the person suffer from dyscalculia? All of these factors can influence the answer that I get even if the actual numbers being plugged into the equation is fixed. So, from that point of view, the answer is random using the technical definition of random.

These different ways of looking at the problem show how the word "random" is being used.

When all the inputs are known and a deterministic scheme is used to arrive at an outcome and nothing perturbs that deterministic scheme, then the process is not-random. In fact, it is a special case of how we use the term "not-random"; it is determined. If we live in a deterministic universe at higher levels of abstraction (where quantum fluctuations cancel out), then even most mutations (those occurring by copy error) are determined. We do not speak of them as determined because we lack so much information.

If the outcomes are not known because we do not have all the input variables, then we speak of them as random. If something can perturb a system so that new inputs -- the effect of which are not known -- can mess with a system, then we speak of that process as random.

But, once again, that is not what we were discussing. As I thought I made abundantly clear for the purpose of discussion I accept the technical definition of random. We have been discussing how the word "not-random" is used, not how the word "random" is used, unless you want to keep beating the same dead horse.

The way we use the word "non-random" in conversation is to denote a process that further limits the potential outcomes of some process (that already occurs with some limitations -- so we don't have to beat that dead horse again). We do not speak of Roger Clemens pitching as "random", though technically it is. It is "non-random" because his pitching significantly limits the number of possible places the ball may go. If someone wants to use the term "non-random" to mean "determined", then that is fine, but everyone must agree to that. That simply is not how the word is being used in the literature on evolution (or virtually anywhere). If your problem is only with the use of certain terms that are applied loosely, then fine. But I think it is a fool's game to "clean up the language" because absolute precision in language is not feasible. No one here is trying to pull a fast one with the term "non-random". We have a perfectly good word for a process in which all the inputs are known and the outcome is absolutely assured. That word is "determined". That is why when people speak of processes like Roger Clemens pitching or natural selection they do not use the word "determined" but "non-random" (or we simply do not apply the word "random") -- because in general speech the word "non-random" does not mean "absolutely determined" (actually it does in one sense, but this is a special sense of the word, since "absolutely determined" is the ultimate expression of limiting the possibilities -- to one). "Non-random" refers to any process that significantly limits possible outcomes in any random system. In other words, "non-random" means that the full expression of randomness is not permitted.

Terry Pratchett is very fond of playing with technical-type definitions. You might expect the colloquial use of "non-random" to refer to the opposite of "random". If "random" means "the possibilities are unknown so the outcome can only be described using a probability spread", then you might expect "non-random" to mean that the outcome is absolutely known and determined. But that is not how we use langauge. One of Pratchett's favorites is color (another is sound). Really the opposite of color should be "negative color", or color being sucked from the environment. Likewise he says the opposite of sound is not silence but "negative sound" (sound being sucked from the environment). The way we use langauge, however, the opposite of color is the absence of color, or black. The opposite of sound is silence. The way we use "random" and "non-random", "non-random" is not precisely the opposite of "random". Predictions are simply easier in a "non-random" system because the possibilities are limited.

If you wish to use precise technical terminology, then "random" and "non-random" are very poor choices since they are garbage terms that really only denote our ignorance of inputs. I realize that others have appropriated the term "random" and used it in a technical sense. I'm fine with that as long as everyone is on the same page. The big problem in philosophical discussions, however, is that words are not precise and people often switch from one definition of a word to another definition (of the same word) in mid-sentence and think they are proving some great truth when all they do is muddy the waters. I am not accusing you of this. I am only pointing out the problem since I see it happening frequently.

If you want people to be precise in such discussions you really should be arguing against the use of "random" and for the use of "determined" and "undetermined". Those terms make precise comments about the ontological structure of the world and the process at hand. Random just means, "we don't know."

 

[cyborg]

Why do I get a sense of deja vu?

Oh yeah, it's because I said much of this 50 pages ago.

I think you may be wasting your time here Ichneumonwasp. I don't think he's going to get it.

 

[Vorticity]

I'll give each of you 15 quatloos to let this thread die.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, I wasn't paying any attention to it after the first few pages since the whole thing was obviously a semantic game. I guess I was bored this weekend.

I'll stop. I don't see any reason to repeat what I've already said.

 

[cyborg]

Hey, don't let me stop your fun and games - just as long as you're informed about the current status here.

 

[Dumbledore]

Again, the sources you provide are rife with references to probability, which is how stochastic processes are defined.

Perhaps you, or anyone else here, can described to me, as I requested in my OP, how one can simultaneously describe a process as "non-random" and then discuss how changes in the parameters alter the probabilities in the process. It seriously doesn't take a genius to figure out that then only self-consistent definition of "random" is "[o]f or relating to an event or situation that can be described by a probability distribution or random variables" and that the popular literature contradicts itself when it call evolution by natural selection "non-random" and then goes on to describe it with probabilities.

I would take you a lot more seriously if you gave some indication that you had actually considered what I was saying rather than just parroting what articulett has said, as you have not presented any new information since you first posted here.

No I have not contributed any new evidence to this thread. I prefer to observe and ask questions instead of making assertions. As for your arguments, I have considered what you have had to say, it does not add up, your arguments fall short of being convincing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No I have not contributed any new evidence to this thread. I prefer to observe and ask questions instead of making assertions. As for your arguments, I have considered what you have had to say, it does not add up, your arguments fall short of being convincing.

Could you then explain how describing evolution as "non-random" and then describing it in reference to probability "adds up" or how you find it convincing?

I would suggest that if you are not able to come up with a coherent answer to that in your own words, you haven't seriously considered any of the arguments that I have put for and are instead choosing to parrot articulett in all her glorious ignorance.

 

[BlackKat]

Could you then explain how describing evolution as "non-random" and then describing it in reference to probability "adds up" or how you find it convincing?...

I'm going to deliberately ignore the "in your own words" and just give you this fun dice game to play:
http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/intro_prob_models/intro_prob_models.html

 

[articulett]

I'm going to deliberately ignore the "in your own words" and just give you this fun dice game to play:
http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/intro_prob_models/intro_prob_models.html

Good tactic... all his questions are those weenie types anyhow... the one where the answer is implied... just like his OP-- the kind that don't really parse well...they're meant to infer something not elicit understanding.

I actually gave him exactly what he asked for in his OP... a peer reviewed paper that said how evolution was non-random. But like Kleinman and Behe, Mijo is impervious--

I, however, thought your link was great!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Good tactic... all his questions are those weenie types anyhow... the one where the answer is implied... just like his OP-- the kind that don't really parse well...they're meant to infer something not elicit understanding.

I actually gave him exactly what he asked for in his OP... a peer reviewed paper that said how evolution was non-random. But like Kleinman and Behe, Mijo is impervious--

I, however, thought your link was great!

Except it is another in a long line of links that simply don't answer my question.

Yes, the sums of a number of dice throws are non-uniformly distributed and dependent on the number of dice thrown, but that does explain why they are non-random, especially since models using several dice and cards are used to demonstrate quintessential random behavior to 12-18 year olds.

 

[Dumbledore]

Could you then explain how describing evolution as "non-random" and then describing it in reference to probability "adds up" or how you find it convincing?

I would suggest that if you are not able to come up with a coherent answer to that in your own words, you haven't seriously considered any of the arguments that I have put for and are instead choosing to parrot articulett in all her glorious ignorance.

Hey, believe what you want, I am not the one ignoring what is staring me in the face. By the way, I am done with this thread, so good luck!!